Great column in...the Chicago Tribune!?

--------------------
Baring the hypocrisy of gun control
--------------------

It's wrongheaded to try to disarm law-abiding citizens

By Dave Workman
Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week

September 12, 2003

Some not-so-funny things happened on the way to a story about a workplace shooting in Chicago by an angry man with a handgun.

Truth emerged the winner. Justice is the loser. The American way is a lot less clear. Hypocrisy joined stupidity in the spotlight.

The killings Aug. 27 by Salvador Tapia seemed depressingly routine, but that changed rather quickly. Before the six victims were even cold, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Acting Police Supt. Phil Cline, and an extremist gun-control group called Handgun-Free America, were exploiting the deaths to push an anti-gun political agenda.

Tapia, a convicted recidivist offender who apparently terrorized his girlfriend and family members, and had a history of arrests, was a convicted felon. He was barred from legal gun possession, yet he still managed to get his hands on a gun, and that's a crime. Yet Tapia was still on the street. But did the courts, prosecutors or police get blamed?

"The problem here is access to a firearm," Cline declared. "Here's someone who never should have had a gun, who had a gun, and tragic results occurred."

Daley called the shooting "a terrible example of what can happen when guns end up in the hands of people who should never be allowed to have them."

HFA executive director Chris McGrath pontificated, "The fact that a man with a history of violent acts and multiple arrests for felonies could so easily obtain a handgun and use it to kill six of his co-workers exposes the fundamental flaws in our current approach to reducing gun violence. While keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and others who have been identified as potentially dangerous is a step in the right direction, the only way we are going to effectively reduce gun violence in America is to eliminate access to handguns by all non-military and non-law enforcement."

There's just one problem with all of these whines. The pistol used by Tapia had previously been owned by two now-deceased Chicago police officers. One of them bought it from a Chicago resident nine years ago; a resident who had owned it since 1967 and registered it in 1983. Neither cop had bothered to register the gun, a .380-caliber Walther PP semiautomatic, as required by law. Now, why would two Chicago cops have owned the same undocumented small-caliber handgun? For what purpose could they have wanted such a pistol? It's not approved for back-up carry in Chicago, and it's not legal for other Chicago residents to own an unregistered handgun. How did Tapia get his hands on it? Chambered for a rather anemic cartridge, the pistol has mediocre firepower because of its limited magazine capacity.

After this gun's trail of ownership was revealed by the Chicago police, Daley, Cline and McGrath became remarkably silent. They can't complain about the gun coming in illegally, because it has always been in Chicago. As for the "easy access" and "only cops should have handguns" laments, this case suggests that it's apparently easier to get undocumented guns if cops own them, and nobody seems eager to explore that subject.

Incredibly, the gun's original owner, Milton R. Beuck, a 58-year-old homeless man, was jailed for failure to keep a record of the gun's sale for 10 years, as required by law. On Sept. 9, Cook County Circuit Judge Marvin Luckman gave Beuck a one-year conditional discharge for failing to keep records of a 1994 transfer of the pistol to a Chicago police officer .

Chicago police spokesman David Bayless has displayed remarkable candor to disclose the pistol's curious history, and the smarts to put this tragedy in perspective. His take: That this pistol was owned by two cops has nothing to do with the fact that Tapia, and nobody else, invaded Windy City Core Supply and started shooting.

Tapia's crime was not the gun's fault, nor is it reason to scrap the firearm civil rights of every other American citizen. But the same social philosophy that has disarmed law-abiding Chicagoans for decades--and would jail them for having unregistered handguns--has also left the court system broken, so that predators like Tapia roam free to create more havoc that people like Daley, Cline and McGrath exploit until facts stop them cold.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this from somebody, but here goes:

Neither cop had bothered to register the gun, a .380-caliber Walther PP semiautomatic, as required by law. Now, why would two Chicago cops have owned the same undocumented small-caliber handgun? For what purpose could they have wanted such a pistol? It's not approved for back-up carry in Chicago, and it's not legal for other Chicago residents to own an unregistered handgun.

gun control has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fighting crime, it ONLY has to do with SUPRESSING law abiding citizens, control them and thus securing the lifelong cozy and rich-making position as a "politician". Every time you hear "It's for the children", you should know what it means.

I'm really skeptical of the Tribune editorial staff's motivation in printing this article. I can only assume that they have some other unrelated axe to grind with the "Dayley Machine", and found this a good way to bring some pressure to bear.

Still, if that works in our favor for even a moment, no point in not taking the opportunity.

I'm a born and bred Chicagoan. I currently live in the Chicago suburbs (and now can legally own handguns...and do.) What really disturbs me is the irrational thinking of anti's and Heir Daley. I don't see how restricting handguns from Law Abiding citizens is going to deter criminals. Most of the people I know still in the city (who havn't left during the time of "white flight") are there because they work for the city. All of the ones I know personally, that are not Cops, own handguns. It is unfortunate to me that otherwise law abiding citizens of Chicago are criminals because they retain their second amendment right to bear arms for their own personal defense. Where's the logic in that?

And as an aside, it was my Chicagoan sister-in-law who chastised me for NOT owning firearms for protection. After a long hiatus of not owning, I am now an owner once again. She comes form a LE family but is not one herself. She doesn't own a handgun (It's illegal in the city you know)...she owns several.

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.